All quite true. The stock market isn't something most people can expect to make fast money on, but investing in mutual funds or index funds is typically quite safe, and tend to follow the trends of the stock market, which, as I said, averages a 10% increase a year. Even if you put in $50-100 a month in an index fund, at 10% a year, and do that every month for 40 years, you're going to get quite a sum of money.

Also, I highly recommend index funds over mutual funds. After management fees and the extra taxes from the constant trading that goes on within a mutual fund, very few mutual funds can outperform an index fund, and fewer still consistently outperform index funds. I also think index funds have lower minimum investments. Lots of mutual fund companies have some rather shifty methods that lets them legally put some pretty impressive numbers on their brochures, but they aren't what you actually get. Next time you feel motivated, investigate index funds

I dunno...the 30% return on the fund my money is in is good enough for me.

Assuming he worked 60 hour weeks, got paid standard time and a half at above 40 hours, carried no medical insurance, never needed medical care, never helped a friend out, survived on $800 a month (maybe he likes socializing at the soup kitchen and hitching rides on the bumper of the city bus), actually made $12 an hour as a parking lot attendant in the 70's, and 10% return on his savings every year, that would take 32 years.

He didn't go to college, so he likely started working at 18 or earlier. Forget how old he is, but he's certainly over 50.

If you're really getting 30%, awesome. But I'm skeptical. Unfortunately the book on mutual funds that I read was boring, so I'm not sure how to check if thats really what you're getting. I kinda stopped paying much attention after getting the gist of things

I know plenty of people who work 72 hours a week.

You also don't require $1,000 for a mutual fund. There are few mutuals funds which I have invested in which require a minimum of $250.

I have also heard plenty of stories of people making over 20% in the stock market over many numbers of years.

So you lied. He's not a millionaire ("Millionaire" != rich, by the way) because of had work or effort. He gambled and he got lucky.

No. Through smart/low risk investing, you'd have to be extremely unlucky to not gain money slowly over time.

And millionaire often means financially comfortable.

At any rate - There are currently 180 thousand soldiers working in Iraq. That comes down to approximately one soldier for every 140 people. For the sake of comparison, the NYPD currently has 27,000 officers and the population of New York is somewhat over 8 million people, coming down to about one police officer for every 300 officer. If you count private security companies like Blackwater, of course, the statistic becomes even more "favourable" for the iraqi people, but although there are about as many contractors as there are real combatants in the Iraq war, the number contractors in combat roles - mercenaries who make several times more money than the average GI - is very limited. The obvious conclusion is - first, very few occupation forces in history were this large in comparison to the population they're meant to pacify. Second, the American people - who shouldn't be in this idiotic war in the first place - is most definitely not getting their money's worth here. Calling the US military "efficient" is like calling Exxon/Mobil "enviro-friendly."

Doesn't it mean someone with £1,000,000 (or $1,000,000 I suppose) between assets and liquid money?

A net worth of 1 million isn't what it used to be thanks to inflation. Although a million pounds is a lot more money than a million dollars. Hell, a million dollars right now is worth about five shiny trinkets and one particularly polished stone.

And can be used to purchase large tracts of land and force the inhabitants to relocate to Oklahoma?

Well, I would think that the company has to be truthful about what they put in the statements they send to the house every month (not advertisements; statements regarding the individual's actual investment). It's probably illegal to misrepresent how much money a person's shares/investments in the company are worth.

However, that particular fund has had some quite profitable years; it's certainly not indicative of every fund, or even other funds from the same company.

Anyhow.

One should generally define "millionaire" as "person possessing $1,000,000 USD in liquid capital, property and other assets or the equivalent in his or her country of residence", rather than "comfortable". A lot of people are "comfortable" and have nowhere NEAR $1,000,000.

What the stock is worth, and how much money you can take home from it are two very different things.

For example, a share of a mutual fund compnay could in theory break down in the following way.


Value of market: $100
cost to buy share: $5
cost to sell share: $5
commision cost of broker: $10

This means, that when you "cash in", your $100 shares, are actually only worth $80 or $85 dollars to you. (these are extreme numbers of course)